Joe Ferguson forever

Compromise is how bills are passed. There was compromise until trump nixed it.

so a few is not better than many. maga logic. you weren't aware that Lankford was an architect of the bill, now were you? btw, you answered your own question about a revision.

I think bringing up ugly stories before the election is normal politics. At least this one is credible and has some evidence to support it.

ah, so now you make summary judgement. I think I'll believe Lankford over you.

because non whites aren't really American, right? And women should be subordinate to men? I think we should deport Melania. She speaks broken English and is a first generation immigrant. You should look into Vivek as well.

I'll let conservative R senator Lankford answer: The bill also would have supplied more funding to interdict fentanyl and human trafficking, and it included $60 billion in aid for Ukraine and $14 billion for Israel. “It doesn’t have everything in it I wanted, it doesn’t have everything it it my Democratic colleagues wanted,” one of the architects of the bill, Republican Sen. James Lankford, said from the Senate floor before the vote was taken. “But it definitely makes a difference.” In the lead-up to the vote, Lankford accused his Republican colleagues of opposing the bill on political, rather than policy, grounds. “It is interesting: Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy,” Lankford saidon CNN. “And now, it’s interesting, a few months later, when we’re finally getting to the end, they’re like, ‘Oh, just kidding, I actually don’t want a change in law because it’s a presidential election year.’” The bill was also supported by several groups that typically align with Republicans, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Wall Street Journal editorial board. The National Border Patrol Council, a union that represents about 18,000 border patrol agents, also endorsed the bill. my guess as to why there was no attempt at further compromise: The bipartisan authors of the original bill felt it impossible given the political consequences the remaining R's prioritized. but you'd need to ask them.

i like freaks more than magas. at least most of them are overtly honest. there isn't a political issue that trump hasn't tainted. this is a politics board...

if the border is such a high priority, the bill would have passed. no, i don't want murder of anyone by anyone especially liz cheney by trump.

how are we going to close the bet? i think there are plenty of scumbags on both sides that don't want this coming out. my gut feeling is that epstein was mossad or at least worked with them.

of course. there's no way a serial adulterer, rapist, beauty pageant owner could do something like this. you just know it's untrue.

this was the only coherent statement. thank goodness. you'll have no effect on the prez or down ballot election. you're in the right place

doesn't concern me a bit. i eat lots of fruits and vegetables. they are relatively cheap now.. but if trump stayed out of the way, we'd have an immigration deal.

anyone not directly benefitting from MAGA's plans has every right to claim intellectual superiority. How do you expect to benefit? Will deporting immigrants make your life better? Tariffs? Subjugating women? RFK with no medical training or education acting as head of multiple health agencies? And there are garbage heaps of immorality, unethical behavior and stupidity in MAGA.

And sacrificed her political career for her ideals. MAGAs don't have ideals. They have cartoons and memes that trigger anger and idolatry.

yup. if trump wins and Elon gets his way, I'll need to talk to my financial advisor about safe havens. it'll be an economic bloodbath for everyone except billionaires; they'll have inside information. so sad that there are so many stupid Americans but trump loves the uneducated don't ya know? this is why. I'm betting they're not discussing this on bongino or hannity etc. And on Tuesday, Musk reiterated the anticipated economic pain from the plan. In response to an X user who wrote that spending cuts would cause a “severe overreaction in the economy” and that “markets will tumble,” before the U.S. emerges on “sounder footing,” Musk responded, “Sounds about right.” was your walmart bill 60% higher?

those struggling now will be hurt the most by a 60% increase on cheap, imported Chinese goods due to tariffs..

then trump is not a billionaire? He's leveraged to the teeth. Much of his wealth is real estate. Homes are the most valuable asset for most Americans. Of course they're an indication of relative wealth. They're the single most important indicator for most Americans.

and then there's the very possible scenario that the house value increases at around the historical average, the loan is paid off in 5 or 10 years and the owner remains in it afterwards. Home prices have increased significantly in recent years. Between April 2021 and April 2022, home values nationally rose 18.8%, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency. That is higher than historical averages. Since 1991, the average annual home price increase has been 4.3%, according to the FHFA. Since 2000, the average rate has been 4.7%. And since 2012, the average rate has been 7.7%. Home price appreciation can also vary significantly from state to state. In the first quarter of 2022, home values in Florida were up more than nearly 30% compared to the year before, according to the FHFA State House Price Indexes, the fastest rise of any state. In the state with the slowest home appreciation, North Dakota, values were up about 10%. Between 1940 and 2000, the average home value quadrupled even when adjusted for inflation. Home values increased in each decade during that period, with a high of 43% in the 1970s and a low of 8% in the 1980s. Home values fell between 2007 and 2010, during the Great Recession.

now do a fat, ugly one with a grab my pu$$y shirt on...

seems like a whole lotta lenders are bucking the trend. there are plenty advertising right now.

and yet, you discarded the idea out of hand the first time. of course there's risk. the property taxes will be the same regardless of the loan. the extra cash can help pay it. "Home equity is an asset that if used, needs to be replaced, at much higher cost unless downsizing". care to add ":under certain circumstances"?

no. we know they're not like liberal women. We also know that there are more women than men. And that more of them are voting for Harris than trump. that suggests that either more women are voting secretly for Harris or more don't care what their husbands think or that the sum of women married to liberal leaning husbands or are unmarried is greater than those married to maga's like you.

For simplicity, say you outright own a $100k home. since 2019, it increased in value to 150k. you borrow against that 50k windfall at 8%. Meanwhile your house appreciates at 5% (conservatively). so you pay 4000/yr for interest on your loan while your equity increase $5000/yr. you do even better if you can get more than 8% in the market. This is not a new strategy. trump uses it often.

yes, it includes non liquid assets. houses are still assets that can fuel purchasing power. let's say 50 of that 55k increase is in a primary residence. borrowing against part or all of that at low interest rates (soon to be lower) without losing any equity in comparison to 2019 levels ight be a wise strategy. wealth is wealth. it's better to have 50k more than not.